One of the overarching lessons of the last week, apparently, is that Democrats and Republicans agree that stay-at-home moms are, indeed, working and should be respected for it. Ryan Grim reports that Rep. Pete Stark of California, a top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, wants to put this agreement to the test.
Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.
The Woman's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.
As Stark told Grim, "Mitt Romney was for forcing mothers into the workforce before he decided that 'all moms are working moms.' I think we should take Mr. Romney at his most recent word and change our federal laws to recognize the importance and legitimacy of raising young children. That's why I'm introducing the WORK Act to provide low-income parents the option of staying home to raise young children without fear of being pushed into poverty."
The WORK Act, which House Republicans will almost certainly ignore, was introduced by Stark and seven of his fellow House Democrats this morning. Whether lawmakers who characterize themselves as "pro-family" join them remains to be seen.
In related news, let's also note that Mitt Romney, who created this kerfuffle, has contradicted himself in rather dramatic ways. For one thing, there's the video of the former governor in January, arguing that moms with kids as young as two aren't really "working," and should find jobs outside the home in order to have some "dignity." For another, as we talked about on the show this week, in Romney's book, the Republican wrote, "Welfare without work erodes the spirit and the sense of self-worth of the recipient. And it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life."
And while we're at it, there's also this clip from 2010, uncovered by our pal James Carter, of Romney arguing those who haven't worked in the private sector simply don't understand how the economy works. Given last week's apoplexy, if Hilary Rosen had said the same thing, apparently the right would find this outrageous.
Leave a Comment:
Stay home raising children till they're three years old only? Why not 18? When did Ann Romney reenter the work force?
Has she? I don't think she ever has!
If I made enough money for my wife to not work I would have no problem with it. The problem though is that not working is a luxury. A majority of all families don't have a choice for one parent to stay home. Ann Romney had that choice while most regular Americans do not.
best answer I have see - Flame letter from M Dowds Column this morning(also a must read)
I do not know now, nor have I ever known in my life, one mother
who did not both raise the kids and work a part time or full
time job. This includes my mother, sister, aunts, and all of my
friends mothers. It was not a choice; it was simply the economic
reality of our and their situations.
Ann Romney like her husband is a most unappealing person and a
fraud. They are completely unacceptable as inhabitants of the
White House. Let them eat all the cake they want, build all the
car elevators they pervertedly think they need. I will not
accept or tolerate these people deciding anything that effects
my life. Send them away.
On the one hand, getting new mothers back into the workforce quickly is
important to prevent them from falling behind in job skills. On the other hand,
children in middle and high school need as much parenting as pre-schoolers.
Conventional wisdom seems to hold that once a child is potty trained the
mother's job is over. But parenting becomes more important, not less important,
as children grow. Helping my teenage daughter get her learner's permit and
enroll for college has been more important to her future than anything she and I
did when she was a toddler. So I'm with vabelle. Unless a mother wants to
work-work, staying home with the kids should count as work and should extend
until the age of majority. But that's leftist talk.
There is more to sending poor mothers out into the workforce than simply
cutting off their aid. They need child care, transportation, a living wage,
health insurance, and safe working conditions. They also, of course, need jobs.
The conservative argument for making women work is a lot like their argument
against contraception. They can't see that it is more costly in the long run.
But if they do start providing child care, stop harassment on the subway, end
the 32 hour no-benefit work-week, raise the minimum wage, improve the treatment of women in the workplace, and actually create jobs, I'll reconsider.
Union workers do make enough money for their wives to stay at home and raise the children. The problem is, Good Union Jobs are becoming fewer and fewer as companies and Republican politicians attack Unions and worker rights. 50 years ago, Unions dominated the work force and you only needed one income to buy a home, a car, have health insurance and plenty of food and clothing plus get a good pension when you reached age 65. Nixon (R) opened China, Reagan (R) Bush/Bush (R/R) all backed big business and weakened labor laws and would not let wages keep up with inflation. Let immigrants come in and work for less and pushed for "Right to Work (for less) laws in states. If the Minimum wage had kept up from 1962 to 2012, the $1.25 her hour minimum wage of 1962 would be $14.50 today.
A Union Electrician in California made $6.75 in wages and benefits in 1962 with $4.25 on the check and the rest in benefits. Today a Union Electrician, in California, makes $74.25 in Wages and benefits with $45.00 on the check and $29.25. Union workers can still support a stay at home souse but the rest have to have two income earners to make ends meet.
I would say 4 if there is state funded pre-k and 5 if there is not
I would say somewhere around ages 8-10. Those are still little kids. Based on the Republicans' response to Hilary Rosen, it would be appropriate to extend it at least to that age.
It will be interesting to see what the response from the other side of the aisle is to Stark's proposal.
Is our Democrats learning? Apparently so; more like this, please.
Do you have any evidence to prove this claim Mr. Romney? That is a very harsh accusation. It's also an interesting one. You're insisting that the only people who ever receive welfare are people from families that also received welfare. That there is no such thing as a family who did not receive welfare having a kid who then went on to receive welfare. Very interesting.
Kind've like arguing that gay parents will indoctrinate their children to also be gay. Ya know...cause no gay person ever came from a straight person.
Piggybacking on Mouzer's quote of Mitt-
So Mitt claims to know the emotional effects of being on welfare, without ever having been on it himself. And in another breath ridicules those who have never worked in the private sector, saying they can't possibly understand how it works.
I'd say mothers who raise children at home certainly understand the private sector. They have to manage revenues and costs, deal with suppliers and creditors, and make very tough decisions in order to survive and provide for their families. I dare say mothers understand the real-world aspects of the private sector infinitely better than you, Mitt.
This was always a political issue for them to deflect criticism of the GOP stance on trashing womens rights. Once again creating a tempest in a teapot to confuse the easily confused. Ann Romney has proven this week that she is a liar and hypocrit by her statement about criticism of her being the best Birthday present. What a pair of turds
I'll tell you what is worse for your dignity then being on Welfare: Spending two years applying for jobs you are completely qualified for and getting 0 offers or a courtesy call that you were not chosen...
If you were in a Union, you would have your name on the books with first in, first out as you get referrals to your next employer. You at least get a chance to prove your worth with a Union. Now you sit and sit because the companies can "Cheiry Pick" or get relatives to fill the positions. Unions are fair, unions get you a living wage and they get you good work with good benefits.
This will only become bait for the republican's to begin more of their Not-War on Women. You'll hear that tired term of Welfare Moms again. Their argument will be that "Lazy unwed mothers would then keep having kids to keep getting government assistance. We can't have these types of insidious acts burdened by the tax payers!" Yadda yadda yadda.. and so forth because every woman's dream is to be a baby-factory for government aid!
Democrat's, if they realize it or not, are playing an interesting game of bait the fat cat with a juicy mouse.
I see this as the first step towards the option for "Professional Motherhood" - In which any woman can choose to raise their children full time until the age of 18 - AND receive a salary from the government for doing so. It may be a fantasy idea from a book set in the future - but it's an awesome one. It may require an income limit, similar to the income limit on social security benefits, but it's a future I would like to see.
Cora11 - I absolutely agree with you that people raising children should receive childcare allowances. But rather than a "Motherhood" payment, which would no doubt be clawed back if a single parent were receiving child support payments from the child's other parent (in Canada, the custodial parent has to claim support payments as income, while the parent making support payments gets to claim a deduction), I think it would make more sense and be less politically charged if couples raising a child together or the sole-support parent or parent/guardian with primary physical custody of a child received financial support on behalf of the child (and parents with incomes above a certain threshold would not). So rather than mothers or fathers being subsidized, the children themselves are the offical beneficiaries of those payments. Most people despise the idea of an adult 'living off' the government (unless of course that adult is a rich person or a corporation-person), and have no problem with adults living in poverty, but they're always concerned about 'child poverty' as if it were somehow separate from adult poverty and because, unlike adults, children are regarded as blameless for being poor. It would be a whole lot harder (though not for Newt Gingerich perhaps) to use "Welfare Children" as a political bogeyman than "Welfare Mothers". Frankly, if everyone in America had universal medical care, basic prescription drug coverage, and a guaranteed income of $20,000 with additional benefits for each child, poverty would drop precipitously and the costs of poverty would be reduced significantly. And with that kind of minimum income, people could become more involved with their communities, take better care of themselves and their families and neighbors, and just be healthier and happier. But no, the mythos of the United States is that everyone who is a success is self-made, having risen from nothing, with no help from anybody, and if you aren't rich you have only yourself to blame, and that there's no point helping the 'less fortunate' because there's no such thing as fortune, everybody gets exactly what they deserve and according to how hard they've worked.
This is only if the wages are so low with one income, the stay at home spouse and family would be at poverty level. Their is an income test here if the Husband makes a lot of money, their would be no direct monitary benefit, but, their could be Quarterly credits accumulated towards the 40 quarters needed to get their own Social Security and Medicare when they retire. How many women, who worked between children never made their 40 quarters toward their own Social Security before they became to old to be employable?
Ann Romney better come out to support this legialation if she really does believe that raising a family is "real work". if she doesn't, she's simply a liar.
There is a difference between "working" and being "employed." Employment is the way by which we earn a living in today's society. It is how we put a roof over our head, clothes on our back and food in our bellies.
Raising your kids is "work," and thus requires many things employment requires. But, it does not provide an income. (Stay with me and read carefully...)
In a family unit, everyone has to "work" buy not everyone has to be employed. In a family unit, someone has to be "employed" but not everyone has to be. The employment earns the money but everyone contributes by the work they do.
This is why a "stay at home" parent contributes to the income by taking care much of the work at home, allowing the spouse to focus on employment.
Both work and employment are essential to a family. A single parent has to do both.
Had the Democratic strategist said, "Ann Romney has not been employed by anyone, thus she can't fully appreciate what that role requires," we would not be focused on this. Instead, she said, "Ann Romney has never worked..."
The "dignity" that comes from the work required in employment is the dignity that comes from taking care of one self and your family. You can not get that if everything is handed to you.
Hope this helps.
And if you have 2 or 3 children under age 5 and suddenly their employed father up and leaves, and doesn't pay the support he's supposed to, how in the world is that mother going to afford even just child care if all she can work for is maybe $9 an hour? Dignity or not, they won't survive for long on that.
You did a pretty good job of explaining the difference between work and employment, not that I needed to learn it. But you cannot apply the labels to every circumstance - and the above example is all too common.
I agree w/ you on the distinction Rob, but this distinction is not the one Romney was making.
In context he is not saying that stay at home moms work by keeping the household together. He is stating that stay at home moms are not working (they are not employed) and that they should be if they are going to be on public assistance.
So Mitt Romney himself is stating that by his own definition Hilary Rosen's comment about Ann Romney having never worked was correct.
I could understand why you'd be outraged over the comment because you have defined employment and work differently. But Mitt Romney has defined the two as being the same. Now I am not going to insinuate that his wife is a talking head for Mittens- I realize she is her own person and has her own definition. But the fact that she never attacked her husband for also abusing the definition of 'work' suggests at the very least bias or at the very worst hypocrisy.
Although it may cost more to assist families with day care, it is a preventative measure, to keep people from having children just to stay home. By requiring parents to work even if they have young children, it eliminates any potential motivation to have children just to avoid work. I understand that this is not the RULE of families receiving assistance, but it absolutely happens. I have worked in the system, and people have openly admitted to timing their children so prevent having to go back to work. Just as one is approaching kindergarten and they would have to get a job, they would have another baby. They even readily admit it because there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it, and it isn't illegal.
I do doubt that the small percentage of people that do this out spends the day care subsidies provided to ALL families with small children.
Nicole - Do you really believe a woman with multiple children has more to AVOID work? If you do, you clearly have never raised a child. Being at home with my son (and I only have 1) is far more work than being at my job and doing the work I am employed to do.
I've got to agree with Cora on this one. However, I do think there are those who use children as an excuse to try and not work a job outside the home, which is different from that being the reason to have children.
As to KJ, thanks for the acknowledgement. I agree with you, too, in part. But, I think that more effort should be placed on the abandoning spouse to provide support, all the while not neglecting other temporary avenues. But the adults in the situation first have to be responsible and/or accountable.
Lastly, there will always be circumstances that do not fit the mold.
Mouzer,
But Mitt Romney has defined the two as being the same.
I don't think he is, just like I don't think the Democrat strategist meant to say stay at home parents don't work. I believe she was talking economics and not work effort.
I think Mitt is talking employment when he says work. The dignity comes from earning a living, a wage, not having others provide sole support. When you do something for your money, it means more than if it is just handed to you. (Of course, I'm talking situations where work is possible and disability or other factors keep it from being an option.)
Previous post should show second line as quote...oops.
There is no difference in the way that they used the term 'work.' The point here is that if Ann Romney chastises Hilary Rosen as being incorrect in her definition of the term 'work' then Ann must also chastise her husband for incorrectly using the term or else, as I stated, Ann is clearly being at the very least biased if not flat out hypocritical.
But on the basis of what? You can't just state that this happens. You have to have proof that it happens and that the costs associated w/ altering the system will net out at a positive gain (referring to monetary cost) for the society. Otherwise you are correcting for a problem that represents a statistical improbability at the expense of the society. That's just bad policy.
If this was your intention then why wouldn't you just write the policy to make this the case as opposed to completely altering the policy? Do you have any non-anecdotal basis to back up your claims or is this an entirely subjective claim? It being entirely anecdotal does not necessarily mean that it's not important, but that does raise the issue of how reliable the information is (from the perspective that you could be claiming the problem is far more significant than it actually is). There is also an element of presumption here: are you certain that when women were stating that they were timing their births out so that they didn't have to go back to work that they did not mean this as to imply so that they would have the maximum possible time to stay at home w/ the kids? One is not the same as the other.
Union shop employees make enough money that their wives can stay home without going into poverty. That is why Governor Scott Walker is being recalled. he wants to put "stay at home" mothers back to work by cutting their husbands paycheck and benefits.
Because all things political have an analog in "The West Wing," for the benefit of Mr. Romney and his staff, who are getting crushed out there, I quote Vice President Hoynes: "Welcome to the NFL"
Will this bill cover only mother of Low Income family or will it provide EVERY mother with the choice? I think every "working" (by working here I mean employed, in case some people get confused) women in this country will be happy if we get a better maternity/paternity leave coverage.
Everybody talks about how difficult it is to raise a child. No argument there. But for those who ever have to keep a job while going through maternity knows how difficult the first 3-6 months are to juggle the two, both physically and mentally. For one there is very few (if none) daycare/infant care that will take newborn, and above all, as difficult it is to leave your child in the daycare when they are in their toddler years, it is heart breaking to leave your child in the hand of other when they are newborn.
Good point. When it comes to parental leave for newborn or newly adopted children, the US is waayyyyy behind the rest of the developed world in legally protected paid leave for new parents. And not just Europe. We've managed to lag behind all the Latin American countries in the Western Hemisphere. They offer at least 10 weeks of guaranteed paid leave (up to a percentage, though).
Not to mention that pregnancy has yet to be established at the federal level as "disability" worthy of accommodations in the workplace.
When I had my daughter I had 6 weeks of UNPAID maternity leave. The only guarantee was that I could take the time off without getting fired. If I wanted a paycheck during that time my only option was to drain my sick & vacation leave, leaving me with short paychecks for all those times I had to take my baby to the doctor or stay home if either of us was sick. The loss of pay during maternity leave of course coincides with increased bills and starting to pay huge daycare costs.
Lets not forget the reality of daycare....you often have to start paying before your child actually goes just to hold the spot or you would have no daycare.
I live in Australia, which for the most part has great maternity leave as far as I have experienced. When I went on maternity leave last year, my work gave me a full year as leave (with 13 weeks of that as paid maternity leave). In addition the government offered (I think it was) another 13 weeks of support - obviously at a slightly lower rate. My work also has a provision where I could apply for second year of unpaid parental leave if I can afford to stay home longer.
You do not need a "Paid Leave" if the Husband is making 90K a year plus benefits. The problem is wages are so low, now, for the working class, it takes two "SKILLED" wage earners to raise a family, buy a home and prepare for retirement....That is unless you are a "Union Family" where one spouse has a "UNION JOB" that pays well.
H.R.4379 -- Women's Option to Raise Kids Act
(Introduced in House - IH)
HR 4379 IH
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4379
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to
exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF
participation rate requirements.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 18, 2012
Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. MOORE, Ms. LEE of
California, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. DELAURO, Mrs.
MALONEY, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. RICHARDSON, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CONYERS, Mr.
DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to
exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF
participation rate requirements.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Women's Option to Raise Kids Act'.
SEC. 2. INCREASED AGE LIMIT FOR EXEMPTION FROM TANF PARTICIPATION RATE
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General- Section 407(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(b)(5)) is amended by striking `12 months' each place it appears and
inserting `36 months'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to
fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 2012.
Rachel, you gave Mitt too much credit on that last clip. He didn't just say that you don't understand the economy if you're not in the private sector. he said you don't really understand the economy if you're not a business owner.
More of the same from Rich Uncle Willard.
There is daycare available for infants. I hate to say I had to leave my newborn to return to my employer. I would love to be a stay at home mom but unfortunately I haven't been able to. Healthcare should be available for everyone but not a hand out, if we are going to move forward and out of debt we have to find ways to give this to people in return for something, either by them working for it in someway or paying for it.
My kids started daycare at 6 weeks so I could go back to work. One of the hardest things I ever did in my life was dropping that baby off on that first day.
Wouldn't you have loved to have the choice to stay home with your kids? I would have, and I love the idea of giving the next generation the choice we didn't have. And isn't that what we're supposed to do - make the world better for our kids and grandkids?
My Grandmother, my Mother and my wife never "HAD To BE Employed because my Grandfather, My Father and I were Union "Inside wire men" Electricians with the IBEW and we made enough, they could stay at home and raise the family and now my son makes enough so his wife can stay at home with their 3 children. Unions have always made the difference for workers yet they are under constant attack by the Right Wing Republicans...WHY, because the "Greedy" owners want a larger bottom line rather than taking care of their own workers first that have made them wealthy to begin with.
I will never be able to collect my full social security benefits as I took time off to stay home with my 3 children until the youngest was age 12. I will have to work past 70 to complete the 35 year limit for social security earnings.. The 12 years that I stayed home, I cut corners, cooked from scratch and found many ways for our family to thrive on one paycheck. I definitely worked at managing a household but like other middle class full time moms, I received no credit. My children all are now educated, independent and stable with families of their own. I do hope that in the future, stay at home, moms and dads will be recognized and able to obtain credit for the years that they were working at home.
You raise an issue that I haven't heard much in the debate so far -- that you worked hard while staying at home. I question whether Ann Romney has an equitable understanding of that even though she had 5 children. Did she also have a nanny? Did she have cleaning help? I suspect so, given their wealth, though I'd love to hear factual evidence. If indeed she did, then I challenge her response that she is comparable to the majority of stay-at-home moms who struggle mightily with the economic issues that decision brings about.
This bill would add quarters for eligibility for the "Minimum" Social Security and your work years would add to that dollar amount. It is the highest 35 years of contribution not just 35 years.
The choice to stay home with children who are not yet school age should belong to the parents, whether receiving benefits or not. By school age I mean around age 5, when a child goes to kindergarten. Once the youngest is 5 years of age, those parents still receiving benefits should be evaluated for their capacity to earn. If, for example, the parents have only a high school diploma, GED or less, it could be concluded that they would have to work for minimum wage. Based on the projected earnings, less the cost of transportation to work, parking, work wardrobe, daycare, etc., it should be determined whether it makes financial sense for both parents to work. In many cases this evaluation will be done for only one parent as there is no other parent contributing to the household. If work doesn't NET you any money, why not stay home and raise your children? Why should the government require you to be a slave and work for nothing just because you are poor? Educational programs could be devised to assist these stay at home benefit recipients gain better job skills for a later earning capacity evaluation.
Ann Romney's career is Wife Of Millionaire. If anybody can be described as "Cadillac Queen" it would be her (another birthday present for you, Ann). She makes it sound as though we modern women are standing around a buffet table trying to choose how many flavors of cake we can fit on our plate. The rest of us don't have "choices", we have things like "tradeoffs" and "the lesser of two evils".
So, uh... what exactly is Romney's position on anything? Pay me more?
If you are going to start paying women to stay home and raise kids they had BETTER be raising those kids WELL.
There will have to be academic, health, psychological checks to ensure the kids are actually being RAISED using the money provided.
I already have serious problems with welfare without accountability and progress towards work and financial independence. So this better not be more of the same.
I agree with the spirit of the bill, but I think in reality it leaves the barn door open for abuse. A woman could take the right wing stance of not believing in birth control and be perpetually on "temporary" assistance until after menopause. How would it combat the unfairness that a woman in poverty or wealth can stay home to raise her kids but a woman in the middle must hand her baby over to daycare/babysitter at 6 weeks?
It's ironic that right wing = no birth control, good moms stay home......but at the same time = welfare moms don't work, pop out kids, and are a drain to society. I don't think you can have it both ways.
Manifestly they can, because they do.
Ann Romney doesn't have that problem, since unlike the lazy sluts of the lower classes she acquired her knowledge of the economy from her husband [1].
[1] Mechanism not specified.
The 'right' is not right... they are wrong... in the future please refer to them as the 'right-wing' because that's what they are... just calling them the 'right' gives them credibility, which they don't have.
And I guess according to Mittens, his wife has no dignity... she not only didn't go to work after the youngest turned two... she's didn't go 'back' to work at all because she's never held a paying job to go back too. Mittens can't have it both ways...
@ sunshinegirl 685508 - We already have too much government. Why perform invasive child rearing audits on parents unless there is a valid reason to believe the children are neglected or abused? Do you want the government in your home? Neither do poor people receiving benefits. Wealthy people have been known to neglect, abandon and abuse their children, too. Do not further stigmatize poverty.
This is not about stigmatizing poverty or about welfare, which is a general assistance to those in need.
If the Government is paying you specifically to do a child-rearing job, it has to have checks and balances. We are talking about receiving a salary from the Government for being a stay at home mom.
And like any job, there must be performance appraisals.
Or else what is to prevent someone from receiving a "Stay-At-Home-Mom" salary but spending their time doing f-all but parenting the child.
You want the job equated with REAL work? Then it has to be treated like real work.
there is more to life than nappies and poop, and nappies and poop are also daddy's business.
Typical San Francisco values. Does Stark think we're living in Scandinavia? Paid parental leave is for socialists.
Union shop employees make enough money that their wives can stay home without going into poverty. That is why Governor Scott Walker is being recalled. he wants to put "stay at home" mothers back to work by cutting their husbands paycheck and benefits.
Congressman Pete Stark is from my district and we have AFDC "Aid For Dependent Children" in California that if your family income, falls below a certain level. the State kicks in AFDC or asks the missing souse to kick in AFDC minimums as child support. This allows the mother to care for her children.
I think this is an awesome bill -- relevant and much needed -- but there is a major flaw in it. Why is it limited to moms? What about stay-at-home dads? Or single parent dads? I have been the former -- and yes, raising children is INCREDIBLE work! So males should not be left out of the equation!